DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 12/08/2025.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 8-15, and 22 is/are non-elected.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-21 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-21 is/are rejected.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/08/2025 have been considered.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the restriction of claims 8-15, and 22 have been considered but they are not persuasive
Independent claims 8 and 22 have different scope than the independent claims 1 and 16. Specifically, the limitations “forwarding the RLF report to the source node serving the source cell”, “forwarding the RLF report to the target node serving the target cell”, and “forwarding the RLF report to the source node serving the source cell and the target node serving the target cell” which are recited in independent claims 8 and 22 are not mentioned in independent claims 1 and 16 and their dependent claims, and these limitations require additional search and consideration. Therefore, restriction to the claims is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “DAP” should be changed to “DAPS”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
For claim 16, the claim recites a device having no structural element to perform the plurality of functions, therefore lack more than one structure to perform the plurality of functions.
Claims 17-21 depend on claim 16, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
Applicants are reminded that a machine claim must comprise a combination of device elements. Applicants are reminded that according to MPEP 2106, “Machine – a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650 (1863)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US_20230113810_A1_You.
Regarding claim 1, You discloses a method performed by a wireless communication device, enabled to perform a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover, HO, from a source node/cell to a target node/cell (You figures 2-4), the method comprising: responsive to detecting a radio link failure, RLF, on a source link between the wireless communication device and the source node/cell, generating a RLF report related to the source node/cell (You paragraph 56, “At S210, a terminal device transmits first indication information to a network device. The first indication information indicates that an RLF occurs between the terminal device and a source cell in a handover process of the terminal device from the source cell to a target cell using a DAPS handover scheme.…”, paragraph 64, “…the first indication information may be an RLF report.…”); responsive to detecting a RLF on a target link between the wireless communication device and the target node/cell, generating a RLF report related to the target node/cell (You paragraph 63, “…the failure of the DAPS handover may refer to the terminal device failing to access the target cell, or the terminal device successfully accessing the target cell and the RLF occurs between the terminal device and the target cell”, paragraph 68, “Alternatively, the type value may indicate that the type of the RLF report reported by the terminal device is an RLF report of the RLF occurring in the source cell during the DAPS handover and the terminal device failing to access the target cell”, and paragraphs 72, 75); including an indication on a subsequent uplink radio resource control, RRC, message to a network node that the wireless communication device has one or more RLF reports related to DAPS HO failure (You paragraph 108, “… the terminal device may transmit second indication information to the network device before transmitting the first indication information. The second indication information indicates whether there is RLF information and/or DAPS handover failure information in an RLF report reported by the terminal device…”, paragraph 109, “…the second indication information may be carried in RRC connection reconfiguration complete (RRCConnectionReconfigurationComplete) information”); responsive to receiving a request from the network node to send the one or more RLF reports, transmitting the one or more RLF reports to the network node (You paragraph 110, “…after receiving the second indication information, the network device may transmit request information to the terminal device, and the request information is used for requesting information from the terminal device…”, paragraph 113, “transmitting, by the terminal device, response information to the network device, in response to the request information, the response information including the first indication information, e.g., an RLF report”).
Regarding claim 6, You discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the indication that the one or more RLF reports are related to DAPS HO failure is included in a RLF cause value (You paragraph 85, “…the first information may be a cause field, which may indicate that the RLF occurs in the source cell during the DAPS handover process or indicate the cause of the RLF in the source cell during the DAPS handover process”).
Regarding claim 7, You discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the indication that the one or more RLF reports are related to DAPS HO failure is provided in an information element for indicating DAP HO failure (You paragraph 108, “… the second indication information may be an available RLF information (rlf-InfoAvailable) field…”).
Regarding claim 16, You discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, You discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, You discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-5, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230113810_A1_You in view of US_20230262565_A1_Chang.
Regarding claim 2, You discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising storing the RLF report related to the source node/cell.
Chang discloses further comprising storing the RLF report related to the source node/cell (Chang paragraph 67, “This embodiment provides a link failure information reporting method performed by UE during a DAPS handover. In this embodiment, when a source base station RLF in a DAPS handover procedure is detected, the UE generates and stores link failure information related to the source base station RLF”, paragraph 70, “In step 303, the UE stores RLF information in a link failure report variable (e.g., VarRLF-Report)…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Chang’s the UE stores RLF information in a link failure report variable in You’s system to store the RLF information in organized manner. This method for improving the system of You was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of You and Chang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, You discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising storing the RLF report related to the target node/cell.
Chang discloses further comprising storing the RLF report related to the target node/cell (Chang paragraph 102, “…if in the stored first link failure information, it is determined that a connection failure type is HOF or DAPS HOF, the failedPCellid field is the cell identity of the target primary cell of the previous DAPS handover…”, paragraph 107, “…the UE includes a field in a link failure information variable to indicate that the UE has just undergone a DAPS handover failure. Preferably, the UE includes the target cell identity of the DAPS handover in the link failure information variable …”, paragraph 70, “In step 303, the UE stores RLF information in a link failure report variable (e.g., VarRLF-Report)…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Chang’s the UE stores RLF information in a link failure report variable in You’s system to store the RLF information in organized manner. This method for improving the system of You was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of You and Chang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, You and Chang disclose the method of claim 2, and Chang further discloses wherein storing the RLF report comprises storing each RLF report with a same RLF report information element (Chang paragraph 57, “…a UE variable used to store the radio link failure report is VarRLF-Report…”).
Regarding claim 5, You and Chang disclose the method of claim 2, and Chang further discloses wherein storing the RLF report comprises storing each RLF report in a RLF report information element such that each RLF report information element contains only one RLF report (Chang paragraph 126, “…The UE records link failure information corresponding to the source base station RLF in the link failure report variable such as VarRLF-Report…”).
Regarding claim 17, You and Chang disclose the limitations as set forth in claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 18, You and Chang disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, You and Chang disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471